At my dept, they issued da/sa Smiths, the 59, then the 469, after issuing Model 10 .38s for years. From what I'm told, Officers would routinely holster cocked guns on the sa/da guns. So they issued the 4586/3953 DAOs to resolve that issue. Still had a few ADs with the DAO guns.
I going to be a dick here; but it’s not with malice. This is the question I would ask myself before spending time writing an article like this.Originally Posted by Baldanders
What information or viewpoint will I be providing in this article that a bunch of other authors and content creators haven’t already presented? Why wouldn’t posting a link to the excellent lucky-gunner articles or one of the other 2,398 articles describing handgun action types that were written since the year 2000 be of equal or greater value to the audience?
The answer for me would be nothing and I would find something else I could spend my time on that I might could actually provide unique insight or ideas about. One of the biggest problem with firearms content is that 99% of it is the same 10 or so articles that have been written over and over and over.
im strong, i can run faster than train
I'm an arrogant bastard whose "God mode" prose skills will certainly enable me to better their efforts.
I was thinking I'd go with something pretty well-tread for a warm-up, then move on to pastures without so many cow pies later.
But what makes you think I have any "unique insight" on guns? Seriously, nearly everything has been done before. I was hoping to add my own insights more on the follow-up on "what I'm using."
I would imagine the first ten things or so I put out will be not very good anyway. Why waste original ideas?
Like "Why buy a gun? Just stop bathing, brushing your teeth, mumble to yourself alot, drool, and wear a speedo "Borat-style." LIFEHACK!
REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
NO EXCEPTIONS
S&W SD series work a lot like the Glock, but the part of the mechanism contained in the frame is actually a better design, IMO. It doesn't have the ability to trade off trigger weight vs. travel by changing a ramp angle, but it also doesn't have some of the inherent friction. The one I had wasn't too hard to get all the nasty roughness out of, except for the striker block plunger hole. The bore in the slide was ROUGH. Made with the dullest drill bit on earth, or one that was completely loaded up with chips or something. No way to get the roughness out of it without doubling the price of the gun, so I sold it. If you found one with a properly drilled hole for the striker block plunger, it could be a pretty sweet little DAO.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
A little more history:
INS and invention of LEM
For several years, INS/BP issued the 96D as mentioned earlier. The biggest complaint I had (and MANY others had) was the size of it. For a uniformed officer like BP, hiding it was not an issue. For plain clothed agents, it was kind of boat anchor to hide in hot Texas summers. In the days of revolvers, smaller 3” model 13s, 66s, and J frames could be had to make on or off duty concealment a bit easier. But in the age of the auto loader, we were a one size fits all agency. There is one gun... if it’s too big for your hands? Tough crap. If it’s too big to conceal? Tough crap. If you want to carry a back up? Tough crap. A solution was lacking.
This is the legend (ie rumor) of what changed things. (HCM or other old timers correct me if you heard different). Janet Reno was making her rounds of fed LE agencies, giving town hall style pep talks, meet and greet, and some Q&A type sessions. At one, she asked what do you guy need to help do the job? In the audience was “that guy”, who complained about only having the one big gun, and why can’t we have a smaller off duty gun? Allegedly, Janet looks over at one of the INS directors and asks, “why don’t they have a smaller option? Look into that.”
So, a fire was lit under management to look for a suitable gun that was smaller than the 96, still held an acceptable number of rounds, and could eat our super stout ammo. No real budget was allocated for this, so the simple solution was to look and see what other .40 guns the Dept of Justice had tested. (This was pre 9/11, so immigration was still under DOJ). Turns out the DEA had just tested and approved the HK USPc .40. So the INS reached out to HK and requesting some DAO samples. Allegedly, HK had an engineer at our facility during some of the testing. As problems would crop up, he would get on the phone to the mother ship in Oldendorf and shout orders in German. A day or two later, a FED-ex package would appear from Germany, and a new part would be put in the mix. And during testing, there were problems. Our .40 ammo was HOT, and the compact slide was moving so fast, it was cycling faster than the mag springs could keep up with. The solution was to make the slide 1.5 ounces heavier. This extra mass slowed it down. The ideal of increasing spring weight was dismissed as “smaller statured agents” were already having difficulty with retracting the slide as it currently was designed.
With the reliability issue ironed out, the test guns were sent to FLETC so the FIs could wring them out. A new issue soon popped up. The DAO trigger pull was stiff. Rumor is the “smaller statured FIs” (ie females) were having trouble getting through a 50 round course of fire. All of them could run revolvers and the 96, but they were really struggling to pull the trigger through 50 rounds. Phone calls were made that if the “smaller statured agents who are really good shooters” are having issues, then the “smaller statured agents” in the field were really going to have problems.
HK was apparently really trying hard to please us (in spite of the their “because we hate you and you suck” reputation). So they set out to lighten the DAO pull. The result was the LEM (Law Enforcement Modification). Instead of the old DAO stroke that rolled the hammer back while compressing the mainspring, HK made a two piece hammer. An inner piece that is not readily visible rotates and compresses the mainspring when the slide is racked. An outer visible hammer sits loosely over the inner piece. If you have ever had an LEM, you can move the hammer with your finger and only a couple pounds of force... it’s really easy to move. As you pull the trigger, the outer hammer moves back until it mates up with the inner piece, which is “the wall” of the trigger pull. A few more pounds trips what is essentially a single action only pull. This is a unique animal in that it still has a second strike capability, but you refer back to a 12lb trigger pull for the second strike. The slide cycling returns the gun to LEM trigger mode.
HQ was happy with the new gun, the “smaller statured FIs” loved the new trigger, and in the field, we were excited to get the new guns. As FIs, we got the new guns first, to familiarize with them a few weeks before we rolled them out to the office. We were soooo excited. Then we shot them all day. And there was a mix of reaction that ranged from “meh” to “ewwww”. Let’s just say, it took some getting used too. I never shot it as well as I did the 96. If you tried to run it at speed, there was a false reset, and you short stroked the trigger. I carried it, and overall, they were extremely reliable. But it was my least favorite issued pistol. The trigger really needs to be something you shoot exclusively if you want to get good. Overall, scores went down, but the agents praised the guns. Most were not Gun guys or real shooters, so to them, “smaller gun equals better gun”.
Since then, HK has really improved the LEM, and offers may variations. The “false reset” of the early guns is gone. And the P2000sk version I have is easier to shoot. It’s just snappy being that small, and spitting out 155s. As of 12/31/20, the USPc and P2000sk will no longer be authorized for our duty use, a d their 20 years on the approved list will come to an end.
Hope this has been somewhat helpful or at least entertaining. There is some rumor to it, so take it with a grain of salt, but the development story’s came straight from some “involved participants”...
This concludes tonight’s long rambling post.
—————————
The photo shows the initial marketing for the LEM complete with INS logo...
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
That was always the rumor but in reality HK developed the LEM for German police sales based on the German Police study (which we have discussed here before) which found trigger pull length played a bigger role in preventing NDs than trigger pull weight.A little more history:
INS and invention of LEM
For several years, INS/BP issued the 96D as mentioned earlier. The biggest complaint I had (and MANY others had) was the size of it. For a uniformed officer like BP, hiding it was not an issue. For plain clothed agents, it was kind of boat anchor to hide in hot Texas summers. In the days of revolvers, smaller 3” model 13s, 66s, and J frames could be had to make on or off duty concealment a bit easier. But in the age of the auto loader, we were a one size fits all agency. There is one gun... if it’s too big for your hands? Tough crap. If it’s too big to conceal? Tough crap. If you want to carry a back up? Tough crap. A solution was lacking.
This is the legend (ie rumor) of what changed things. (HCM or other old timers correct me if you heard different). Janet Reno was making her rounds of fed LE agencies, giving town hall style pep talks, meet and greet, and some Q&A type sessions. At one, she asked what do you guy need to help do the job? In the audience was “that guy”, who complained about only having the one big gun, and why can’t we have a smaller off duty gun? Allegedly, Janet looks over at one of the INS directors and asks, “why don’t they have a smaller option? Look into that.”
So, a fire was lit under management to look for a suitable gun that was smaller than the 96, still held an acceptable number of rounds, and could eat our super stout ammo. No real budget was allocated for this, so the simple solution was to look and see what other .40 guns the Dept of Justice had tested. (This was pre 9/11, so immigration was still under DOJ). Turns out the DEA had just tested and approved the HK USPc .40. So the INS reached out to HK and requesting some DAO samples. Allegedly, HK had an engineer at our facility during some of the testing. As problems would crop up, he would get on the phone to the mother ship in Oldendorf and shout orders in German. A day or two later, a FED-ex package would appear from Germany, and a new part would be put in the mix. And during testing, there were problems. Our .40 ammo was HOT, and the compact slide was moving so fast, it was cycling faster than the mag springs could keep up with. The solution was to make the slide 1.5 ounces heavier. This extra mass slowed it down. The ideal of increasing spring weight was dismissed as “smaller statured agents” were already having difficulty with retracting the slide as it currently was designed.
With the reliability issue ironed out, the test guns were sent to FLETC so the FIs could wring them out. A new issue soon popped up. The DAO trigger pull was stiff. Rumor is the “smaller statured FIs” (ie females) were having trouble getting through a 50 round course of fire. All of them could run revolvers and the 96, but they were really struggling to pull the trigger through 50 rounds. Phone calls were made that if the “smaller statured agents who are really good shooters” are having issues, then the “smaller statured agents” in the field were really going to have problems.
HK was apparently really trying hard to please us (in spite of the their “because we hate you and you suck” reputation). So they set out to lighten the DAO pull. The result was the LEM (Law Enforcement Modification). Instead of the old DAO stroke that rolled the hammer back while compressing the mainspring, HK made a two piece hammer. An inner piece that is not readily visible rotates and compresses the mainspring when the slide is racked. An outer visible hammer sits loosely over the inner piece. If you have ever had an LEM, you can move the hammer with your finger and only a couple pounds of force... it’s really easy to move. As you pull the trigger, the outer hammer moves back until it mates up with the inner piece, which is “the wall” of the trigger pull. A few more pounds trips what is essentially a single action only pull. This is a unique animal in that it still has a second strike capability, but you refer back to a 12lb trigger pull for the second strike. The slide cycling returns the gun to LEM trigger mode.
HQ was happy with the new gun, the “smaller statured FIs” loved the new trigger, and in the field, we were excited to get the new guns. As FIs, we got the new guns first, to familiarize with them a few weeks before we rolled them out to the office. We were soooo excited. Then we shot them all day. And there was a mix of reaction that ranged from “meh” to “ewwww”. Let’s just say, it took some getting used too. I never shot it as well as I did the 96. If you tried to run it at speed, there was a false reset, and you short stroked the trigger. I carried it, and overall, they were extremely reliable. But it was my least favorite issued pistol. The trigger really needs to be something you shoot exclusively if you want to get good. Overall, scores went down, but the agents praised the guns. Most were not Gun guys or real shooters, so to them, “smaller gun equals better gun”.
Since then, HK has really improved the LEM, and offers may variations. The “false reset” of the early guns is gone. And the P2000sk version I have is easier to shoot. It’s just snappy being that small, and spitting out 155s. As of 12/31/20, the USPc and P2000sk will no longer be authorized for our duty use, a d their 20 years on the approved list will come to an end.
Hope this has been somewhat helpful or at least entertaining. There is some rumor to it, so take it with a grain of salt, but the development story’s came straight from some “involved participants”...
This concludes tonight’s long rambling post.
—————————
The photo shows the initial marketing for the LEM complete with INS logo...
The INS already had a smaller gun which had passed testing, the P229 DAO. It was an optional POW if your CPA or DD would sign off on it but many did not want to be bothered.
Durability issues in the 96D Brigadier were a big factor driving a new gun. You may recall the INS Firearms unit director who selected the 96D over the 229DAO retired shortly after the contract award and went to prison two years later for bribery because he accepted vacations and other non cash compensation from Beretta. He may have also gone to work for Beretta in violation of the FAR rules.
As for a smaller gun, the HK was originally only for plainclothes personnel, Many of whom had been forced to give up not only mid sized revolvers but optional G19s and P228s. At that time SIG owned the Federal market but we couldn't just have a normal fed gun....
The "small statured" thing came from the fact that in the late 1980s the FBI lost both the civil lawsuits and MSPB admin cases in Christine Hansen et. al. vs FBI. Part of the case (I believe the MSPB part) included complaints about forcing small statured females to use guns that did not fit them despite such weapons being available. The case took 10-15 years to litigate and started before they adopted the 3" M13 RB. The memory of paying these ladies hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement payments was fresh in DOJ at that time.
Cops carry guns more than shoot them. The ICE handgun end user survey prior to selection of the P320 essentially said "we want a Glock 23."
Last edited by HCM; 10-04-2020 at 09:00 PM.
If they'd just been honest and called it the "Moon" I'd probably own one.
Willie, really, the only hammer-fired DAO pistols we saw a lot in training were Berettas. I loved them. My wife's agency went from S&W revolvers to the DAO Berettas. Knowing the guy that was in charge of that process, I'd have to imagine it was just an attempt to press the easy button on auto-transition.
One of my fellow instructors came from my wife's agency and he hated the things, I loved them, they always had a butter smooth DA stroke and capacity, what wasn't to like.
The only problems we really had with them was magazines exploding when dropped onto concrete. Some of them were pretty worn by the time they switched to Glocks.
I remember that, back when I thought velocity and energy were important, the "155 grains @ 1200 fps & 500 ft/lbs" sounded so awesome.
"It's surprising how often you start wondering just how featureless a desert some people's inner landscapes must be."
-Maple Syrup Actual
That there is some golden truth. Too many trainers forget that.
I always saw a lot of first round misses with the Glock on medium level and below shooters. My answer was two-shot from the holster/ready drills, but time is always an enemy when you have only 40 hours actual range time to train shooters.
Last edited by DDTSGM; 10-04-2020 at 10:39 PM.
Reply With Quote